|
|
Posted by Vaxius on 10/09/06 05:09
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:24:41 +0000, Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
>
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
> news:ywESg.238908$5i3.143017@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> dorayme wrote:
>>
>> > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
>> >> All my sites have tables ... but only where there is real tabular
>> >> data. Otherwise, nary a table (for layout) can be found anywhere.
>> >
>> > Can you please stop making these statements as it causes me distress
>> > from guilt. I am not making new tables for layout in spite of a few
>> > arguments that rattle around my brain saying some of it is
>> > justified... but I have yet to go though a lot of stuff and be rid of
>> > the remaining table structures.
>>
>> LOL! Distress? Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.
>
>
> By the way, as far as I remember, you wrote that you had been in Rome.
> Well,
> did you read this (in Swedish about something happening in Italy)?
> http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=148&a=576007&previousRenderType=6
I don't believe it's time to switch to using pure CSS for layouts. My
reasoning? IE. I could launch off on a tangent about all the retarded
things IE does with CSS, but the fact remains that over 80% of people on
the Internet use IE, and I don't want my site butchered it (I did a recent
check and made a CSS layout for the hell of it, looked great in Firefox
and Opera, looked absolutely horrible in IE). And though there are hacks
to get around IE's deficiencies, I can't bring myself to dirty
up my code like that. Therefore, I believe the ugly tables solution will
have to do for the immediate future.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|